Spinoff - God & Virginity

[Glib Gurl]

This is a spinoff of Sparkling Flame's post asking if you wish you had waited to lose your virginity. For those of you who hold Judeo-Christian values/faith, how does God fit into the equation for you? I am particularly interested in hearing from those ladies who are unmaried, above 25 and, uh, "active."

Is it better to marry than to burn with passion as Paul tells us? (Bunny offered the classic example of how that may NOT be best - Jessica Simpson.) What about when you're older, not married, and have a hankering to scratch that itch? Do you think God wants you to go on and be a grown woman, fully utlilizng ALL the gifts he gave you, including your sexuality? Do you feel any conflict spirituality?

I know that for me, one of the things that keeps me clinging to my V-card is a fear of the church walls crumbling down if I saunter up in there as a fornicator. F'real, though, I would feel like an imposter. Also I do not want to disrupt the flow of His spirit. I mean, why would the Spirit dwell in a place that is not holy? (I know, I know - I am already unholy because I am a sinner simply by virtue of the fact that I am on this side of glory. *lol* But the New Testament distinguishes sexual sins because it involves the body and is "sinning against yourself.")

I posted this in the Relationship Forum - and not the Christian Forum - on purpose. I am not looking for anybody to tell me what to do. I just hope we can have an open, non-judgmental discussion.

(Please pardon any typos as I am posting from my pda.)

 

[Bunny77]

This has always been a thorny subject for me, and not because I'm some raging hornball looking for excuses , but because I wondered how much of society's emphasis on virginity was really related to Judeo-Christian concepts... like one poster said in the other thread, I seemed to have an understanding that female virginity first and foremost was valued for patriarchal reasons of ensuring familial lineage, etc.

Later on, the Judeo-Christian (or is it just Christian?) take became to "flee fornication" and that God designed us only for our husbands/wives. But was that really the case, or was this just added to put some religious back up the whole male-ownership-of-woman ideology?

I've also heard that the way we define fornication in English is not the way it was intended in Greek.

And then, all of this being said, the emotional devastation and pain that sex with the wrong person can cause is REAL, so there is definitely something to the idea of sharing yourself only with one person and cementing one's marital bond with that person through sex. The destructive power of sex is not myth, so the "wait until marriage" command DOES have its roots in some for-real truth.

So... what does this mean for me as a woman who fits in your category? I don't know. I believe in the wisdom of waiting for marriage, but I also know that it works mainly in a context where early marriage is encouraged AND supported by a network of church and community. I think those like white Southern Baptists, for example, support early marriage, but the divorce rate is very high, leading me to believe that too many of those kids are marrying to have guilt-free sex, and have no support system to lead them into healthy marriages. It doesn't surprise me that Jessica Simpson is from a southern, religious background, as her situation seems to fit what I'm talking about.

Where does that leave everyone else then? You can teach folks to wait, but anyone waiting past the age of say, 18, is probably waiting LONGER for sex than most people did throughout history. So if a 25-year-old unmarried woman decides to have sex for the first time after waiting on the promise of marriage, only to find that she hasn't even been pursued by any marriage-minded men, is she wrong, considering that her foremothers were probably having sex at 15... but were married?

I think if many religious women knew they would be married by 25, for example, they probably could wait, but if you ask all those 18-year-old girls in those "True Love Waits" workshops and all that if they want to be 32-year-old virgins potentially without marriage prospects, I think they'd all have a VERY negative response to that.

I don't think this is what God had in mind.

I just feel that there's a big disconnect in preaching a certain message when the framework for fulfilling that goal does not exist. I probably didn't answer your question, but those are my thoughts on the issue.

Also, sorry for the length... I too can be "Glib."

 

[aribell]

I'm not going to speak as a 25+ who is "active" but rather as one who has been such and found myself in that sticky situation Bunny described so well above. Signing a "true love waits" card at a lock-in in the 6th grade is very cute and was a good thing. But the long haul requires much better preparation. They say that the teenage years are the most difficult, but I think it's an entirely different ballgame approaching womanhood and the end of youth and realizing that one is isolated from experiences which are quite defining for most people.

But it's a mind game. The struggle is not physical, even though it may seem that it is. It's emotional, psychological, relational. There is that desire to have one's femininity affirmed by a man, to feel deeply connected, and to know that one has "it" that could attract and hold a man.

What God wants is for us to look deeper than what we want at this moment and understand why it seems all important to us. Why we are so persistent in insisting that if we don't "get some" that somehow that makes us miserable creatures...why is sex (societally at least) nigh unto the only thing that it's acceptable to be desperate for?

It's not about being free-minded versus oppressed, but more about choosing and cultivating the presence of mind and wholeness of person to live the strength of one's convictions. That takes courage. If one does not believe in saving sex, then there aren't any convictions to follow. But for a woman struggling with what she believes in her heart is wrong, she may feel that the problem is purely physical. It's not that physical desire isn't really strong (or super strong), it's that its strength doesn't make anyone beholden to it.

It is perfectly understandable that people give in and give up. But there is another way. "God" can be used very generically, but I don't know of any faith in which following God does not take courage, strength, sacrifice, and more often than not following a "different" path. So that being said, whatever "God" someone references, I do not believe that "He" would want people to give up in following through with what is best (or redefine what is best) because it is too hard.

 

[sidney]

Is it better to marry than to burn with passion as Paul tells us? (Bunny offered the classic example of how that may NOT be best - Jessica Simpson.) What about when you're older, not married, and have a hankering to scratch that itch? Do you think God wants you to go on and be a grown woman, fully utlilizng ALL the gifts he gave you, including your sexuality? Do you feel any conflict spirituality?

I know this isn't the religious forum, but I'm going to say what the word says. I understand that everyone here does not hold to these values but I want to answer this question. If anyone doesn't want to know what the bible says, stop reading here.
























Obstaining from sex is a scarifice. Another translation of Romans 12 says its our 'reasonable' sacrifice. So no, I don't think God wants you to sin. He will never contradict himself that way.

Romans 12:1
Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

1 Cor.6:18-20
“Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own. For you were bought with a price, therefore glorify God with your body.


Hebrews 13:4
Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.

 

[ixoyegodisgood]

I have the V-Card and ideally I would hold on to it until I get married. Is that possible? All things are possible through Christ (and I am not going apologize for saying that). For the record, I am a Christian, grew up as a Christian, but I have been to church about 20x in my life, but probably will never go again. No one is perfect, but I choose to attempt to practice the principles of Chirst and not only dedicate an hour a week to them.

 

[MissNina]

I know this isn't the Christian forum, but virginity is such a hard topic because it really does depend on your religious conviction. Everyone's conviction is different. . .however, from a BIBLICAL standpoint, you already know what it is. Spirit vs. Flesh. . .sacrifice. . .all of that.

However, I do believe Christians have to stop looking at sexual sin like it's unlike any other sin. Excuse me for going "Catholic-esque", but the only differences with sin is whether or not you knew it was prior to committing it. Mortal (knowingly) vs. Venial (unknowingly) sin. Losing your virginity before marriage is definitely a mortal sin.

The Biblical distinguishing of sexual sin from other types is the sense that the act in itself is a duality. Ex: Giving(male) vs. receiving(female), mental vs. physical, pleasurable vs. damaging to you vs. someone else, etc.

Now when sex happens in it's proper Biblical context (virginity and/or marriage), it becomes the opposite of duality - UNITY. It blends lines of separation and ceases division. Unity means becoming one. So, by definition, it causes you to see someone as you see yourself. . .and in turn LOVE SOMEONE as you love yourself. Is this not what Jesus taught? You can debate whether or not that can happen outside of virginity/marriage as well. . .and if marriage in itself is what it is Biblical meant to be. . .but I hope that makes sense

But, real talk, 30+ as a virgin is a very serious matter. At that point, if you're not doing it for God, IMO you're doing yourself a disservice. What's the point? Virginity should be a part of a life principle (sacrifice for God). . .not just one solitary thing that can be given away or held away based on opinions, feelings or rationale.

 

[darlingdiva]

This is a spinoff of Sparkling Flame's post asking if you wish you had waited to lose your virginity. For those of you who hold Judeo-Christian values/faith, how does God fit into the equation for you? I am particularly interested in hearing from those ladies who are unmaried, above 25 and, uh, "active."

Is it better to marry than to burn with passion as Paul tells us? (Bunny offered the classic example of how that may NOT be best - Jessica Simpson.) What about when you're older, not married, and have a hankering to scratch that itch? Do you think God wants you to go on and be a grown woman, fully utlilizng ALL the gifts he gave you, including your sexuality? Do you feel any conflict spirituality?

I know that for me, one of the things that keeps me clinging to my V-card is a fear of the church walls crumbling down if I saunter up in there as a fornicator. F'real, though, I would feel like an imposter. Also I do not want to disrupt the flow of His spirit. I mean, why would the Spirit dwell in a place that is not holy? (I know, I know - I am already unholy because I am a sinner simply by virtue of the fact that I am on this side of glory. *lol* But the New Testament distinguishes sexual sins because it involves the body and is "sinning against yourself.")

I posted this in the Relationship Forum - and not the Christian Forum - on purpose. I am not looking for anybody to tell me what to do. I just hope we can have an open, non-judgmental discussion.

(Please pardon any typos as I am posting from my pda.)

I actually do feel a lot of conflict spiritually. I haven't fully given my heart to God because of this very issue. Christianity teaches that we shouldn't have sex if we're not married, and I completely disagree. I don't see what's so wrong with engaging in sexual activity with a fellow, uninvolved consenting adult.

 

[MissNina]

I actually do feel a lot of conflict spiritually. I haven't fully given my heart to God because of this very issue. Christianity teaches that we shouldn't have sex if we're not married, and I completely disagree. I don't see what's so wrong with engaging in sexual activity with a fellow, uninvolved consenting adult.

It's not just Christianity that teaches that. . .I'm not aware of a major religion that does consent sex before/without marriage.

 

[UmSumayyah]

I'll come back to this but I wanted to bump it before it got any further back.

 

[song_of_serenity]

We as Christians serve a God who is able to keep us and will NOT give us more than we can bare. Even sexually. God isn't a like that, giving us desires (which are good IN the way he intended it, marriage) without "keeping us" when we are not.

I find it becomes MORE of a struggle (I am a virgin) when I find myself moving out of His will...

 

[UmSumayyah]

UmSumayyah's take.

I firmly believe that the things defined as "sins" are such because they are bad for you in the long and/or the short run, and bad for you and society in the long and/or short run.

Exhortations to avoid sin, then, are all about doing what's best for you, NOT soley as a means to measure your holiness or worthiness as a person.

Don't most religions encourage cleanliness? We all know that clean environments are more relaxing to be in, and in our modern world we know that cleanliness has a large role in maintaining health.

But do we condemn people from a religious standpoint because they don't keep their toiletbowl sparkling and their fridge mold-free? Do we consider them unfit for marriage because they qualifed to be on an episode of "How Clean is Your House" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktHqphBNRQo two years ago, even though they've gotten their act together and their house is always reasonably clean now and has been since then? No.

Don't most religions abhor gossip/backbiting? We all understand how gossip and backbiting can destroy relationships, causing unnecessary drama and lack of trust. But do we condemn gossips in strong, uncertain terms? Do we consider a reformed idle gossiper unfit for marriage even though they've turned themselves around and do a much better job guarding their tongues?

Don't most religions look down upon sloth and gluttony? Don't we all understand that every extra bite of food that we don't need could have gone to the hungry? Don't we all know intellectually, how depressing it is to be a layabout, and how much happier we are when we are active and doing something productive with our time? Do we look down on someone forever and ever, amen because they used to live at Wendy's and the local Chinese buffet, and spend every night in front of the tube, even though now they run a marathon every year, shop at Whole Foods and spend more free time volunteering and continuing their education? No.

Yes, most religions require sexual relations to only take place in marriage. And there are lots of benefits to that: More intact families, reduced STD rates, and as some on the board have said, less emotional attachment to old boyfriends. Those are MASSIVE benefits to both the individual and society. I mean, look around.

I would agree that sex is one of the biggies on the list. But I really don't believe in "You suck, you are worth less as a human being because you didn't have sex only inside of marriage". Can't get with that, and that's coming from someone who did follow the rule and is super happy about doing so.

Even if I wasn't religious, I would have done the same.

 

[Bunny77]

UmSumayyah, great post!!!

As I went back and read my own, I wanted to clarify something that I hoped wasn't being misunderstood. When I said that "I don't think this is what God had in mind," I was not insinuating that it was "okay" if a person had sex outside of marriage when he or she reached a certain age. If one's religion says that sex outside of marriage is wrong, then it's wrong.

My point though was that I think our churches have done people (mostly women) a disservice by not providing the framework in which this command can be fulfilled more frequently. I do agree with Nicola that one can see waiting past a certain age as a sacrifice made to God, but at the same time, I think that religious leaders and institutions should want to shield their flock from excess exposure to situations that can lead to sin.

I'll only speak of women at the moment because that's what we are, but if you want to prevent women from having sex before marriage and potentially suffering the myriad of consequences that can result, instruction about the proper ways to prepare for relationships should be given, as well as talks about courting, how to discern the character of a young man, etc.

Really, to me, this is about much more than just the physical act of sex. I think this issue is sometimes being painted too broadly, because one cliched answer I often hear is, "We should not be ruled by our sexual desires."

I agree with that, but it's not just about sexual desire. Often, women who are virgins for a longer period of time are that way because they haven't been in relationships. Therefore, their virginity is more of a passive choice than an active one. The women who I see struggling aren't struggling so much about just having sex, they're struggling from a lack of intimacy that would be involved in a loving, marital relationship. Sex is the outgrowth of that... but if there's no marital relationship, there's no possibility for sex under said religious rules.

So again, how can the (black) church reconcile low marriage rates and teachings to avoid sex before marriage? How can a woman's exposure to temptation, which would increase the longer she went unmarried, be minimized?

That's all I'm saying. If we're going to promote virginity before marriage, we need to promote marriage.

 

[Crackers Phinn]

That's all I'm saying. If we're going to promote virginity before marriage, we need to promote marriage.

Totally agree!
~~~~~~~~~~~~

The bible was written by people. And these people had perspectives that made their way into the narrative right along with the divinely inspired 'yes'ums' and 'no'sums'.

Do I think that everytime a hymen is broken out of wedlock that G-d sheds a tear like that Indian from the pollution commercials?

An entity that grants free will is not going to be surprised by when or how you use it.

 

[YankeeCandle]

Do I think that everytime a hymen is broken out of wedlock that G-d sheds a tear like that Indian from the pollution commercials?
.

Now you know you need to STOP!

 

[Bene]

I just hope we can have an open, non-judgmental discussion.

It's really hard to have an open discussion if you're already excluding a portion of the population.

For those of you who hold Judeo-Christian values/faith

Theoretically speaking, that statement makes this thread an extension of the Christian forum.


People who don't hold these particular values/faith wouldn't have anything interesting to add to the conversation?

Just saying....

 

[glam-]

That's all I'm saying. If we're going to promote virginity before marriage, we need to promote marriage.

I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[stelladata]

Not to hijack this thread but,

I always wondered about that promise of 16 virgins in the Islamic religion. Why doesnt it say that god will provide them with 16 potential wives? But instead 16 virgins, does that mean that these virgins after serving the so called 'hero' they'd face judgement? what exactly is that saying?

Just curious.

P.s. I was raised to believe that you give yourself to your husband and not pass your vagina out like hotcakes and i'm sticking to this believe system, devote christian or not.

 

[Glib Gurl]

It's really hard to have an open discussion if you're already excluding a portion of the population.




Theoretically speaking, that statement makes this thread an extension of the Christian forum.


People who don't hold these particular values/faith wouldn't have anything interesting to add to the conversation?

Just saying....

Oh I don't mean to exclude anyone - you see UmSummayah broke it down for errybody . . . . I'm just asking about the Judeo/Christian perspective because that's what I'm most familiar with . . . but I welcome everyone's input

 

[Glib Gurl]

Not to hijack this thread but,

I always wondered about that promise of 16 virgins in the Islamic religion. Why doesnt it say that god will provide them with 16 potential wives? But instead 16 virgins, does that mean that these virgins after serving the so called 'hero' they'd face judgement? what exactly is that saying?

I'm curious about that as well . . . I mean, doesn't that promote the idea that women are property to be used at the will of a man (sexually or otherwise) for all of eternity? *scratching head*

 

[CoilyFields]

Staying a virgin until marriage would be much easier if we did not live in a sex saturated society.

Everywhere we turn their is a reminder of two things in this country...sex and food. lol. Hence the reason we are so obese and so hypersexualized. So we can't really judge the rightness of a law according to the difficulty in following it. And we have enough devestating outcomes due to sex outside of marriage that anyone who is an unbeliever should think twice about it anyways.

I really can't say that it is a failing of the church to promote marriage but a set of societal values that actively fight against it, paired with a distinct lack of marriage-minded males to choose from that hinders high black marriage rates.

To answer the OP...God cannot lie and so would not contradict himself. If fornication is a sin...then its a sin at any age, in any society, and under any circumstances.

 

[Bunny77]

Not to hijack this thread but,

I always wondered about that promise of 16 virgins in the Islamic religion. Why doesnt it say that god will provide them with 16 potential wives? But instead 16 virgins, does that mean that these virgins after serving the so called 'hero' they'd face judgement? what exactly is that saying?

Just curious.

P.s. I was raised to believe that you give yourself to your husband and not pass your vagina out like hotcakes and i'm sticking to this believe system, devote christian or not.

About your first question, that's an EXCELLENT point. Yes, it doesn't explain exactly how one is supposed to relate to these many virgins that he will be given. It would seem that if we are supposedly following the no sex before marriage rule, that this man must first marry all of these virgins before he has sex with them.

Otherwise, is this just encouraging fornication? And now, aren't you (religious leaders who say this) contradicting yourself?

Second part... I'm curious about the dichotomy there. Is the assumption that if you didn't save yourself for your husband, that you are passing your vagina out like hotcakes? Is this another manifestation of a Madonna/Whore distinction... that you're either virginal or a slore? Where does that leave the woman who had sex with a boyfriend or two, broke up with himthem, and waited for her husband after that? Is 2/3 partners in an entire lifetime "passing her vagina out like hotcakes?"

I'm not talking about the sin factor here (sin is sin regardless of numbers), but more of your phrasing that seems to believe it's an either-or deal... either be pure or be a slore. Doesn't leave much room for gray area...

 

[Bunny77]

Staying a virgin until marriage would be much easier if we did not live in a sex saturated society.

Everywhere we turn their is a reminder of two things in this country...sex and food. lol. Hence the reason we are so obese and so hypersexualized. So we can't really judge the rightness of a law according to the difficulty in following it. And we have enough devestating outcomes due to sex outside of marriage that anyone who is an unbeliever should think twice about it anyways.

I really can't say that it is a failing of the church to promote marriage but a set of societal values that actively fight against it, paired with a distinct lack of marriage-minded males to choose from that hinders high black marriage rates.

To answer the OP...God cannot lie and so would not contradict himself. If fornication is a sin...then its a sin at any age, in any society, and under any circumstances.

Agree with the majority of this... but... question about the bolded...

Where did this distinct lack of marriage-minded black men come from? Teaching the importance of marriage is a community responsibility and one of the central forces in the black community is... the church.

So, seeing that these non-marriage minded black men didn't just drop from the sky, but were instead molded this way by their upbringing, I'd dare say that this IS indeed a church failing. Seeing that most black Americans are Christian and probably had a church upbringing, then how all of a sudden are these men not marriage-minded? In most cultures where religion is central to their lives, there's no such thing as a large number of men who aren't "marriage-minded."

In this case, yeah, I'm definitely putting blame on the church for that.

 

[CoilyFields]

Agree with the majority of this... but... question about the bolded...

Where did this distinct lack of marriage-minded black men come from? Teaching the importance of marriage is a community responsibility and one of the central forces in the black community is... the church.

So, seeing that these non-marriage minded black men didn't just drop from the sky, but were instead molded this way by their upbringing, I'd dare say that this IS indeed a church failing. Seeing that most black Americans are Christian and probably had a church upbringing, then how all of a sudden are these men not marriage-minded? In most cultures where religion is central to their lives, there's no such thing as a large number of men who aren't "marriage-minded."

In this case, yeah, I'm definitely putting blame on the church for that.

In social work...lack of education+few acceptable jobs without one=poverty=crime=almost 1/3 of black males between 23-45 in jail. Thats a Small pool to work with from jump.

At my church (about 200 active members average) most of the men are married. there are like...3 men that are over 21 and under 65 that are single. But the majority of the women in the church are either single or divorced...with children. We have a marriage ministry and a singles ministry. So I tend to wonder what people really expect the church to do? Especially when lots of people sitting in the church wont even follow the order God outlined to even get to a married state. In this instant gratification society we want the outcome without the work.

I have NEVER heard or seen a church diss marriage but our society actively works against it (encouraging sex oow, living together etc.). So how is it the church's fault when people are drawn away by their own lusts? (This is not to say that the church should just give up and not continue to try to have a positive effect)

 

[~Sparklingflame~]

Im wondering......is it possible that there are women and men out there who dont hold onto any religion at all but decide to remain virgins until they are married. I like to think so. Virginity doesnt necessarily have to equate to any religious practice or belief system.

 

[Optimus_Prime]

Im wondering......is it possible that there are women and men out there who dont hold onto any religion at all but decide to remain virgins until they are married. I like to think so. Virginity doesnt necessarily have to equate to any religious practice or belief system.

I'm not religious at all. I just think it's smarter, and I'm naturally very conservative.